The nation has witnessed a spate of senseless ‘religious’ mob killings, as a result of allegations  of blasphemy against Islam or the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The allegations against the victims have sometimes been shown to be false, or have been unsubstantiated, yet, their lives have been taken under gruesome circumstances of stoning and burning to death. Examples are Gideon Akaluka and Bridget Agbahime in Kano; Deborah Samuel and Usman Buda in Sokoto; and Amaye, a food seller in Niger State, who all suffered this cruel fate. This unholy practice which is incomprehensible and cannot be defended under any law of the land, has been on the rise since the inception of the Fourth Republic. The prevalence of religious mob justice is in the Northern part of the country, where Sharia Law was adopted following Nigeria’s return to democracy in 1999, and worries have been expressed as to whether the Government is not complicit in these extra-judicial killings. This is because in a number of the incidents, the culprits were either not apprehended, or when they were, they were subsequently let off the hook. For instance, in the case of the mob killing of septuagenarian, Mrs Bridget Agbahime, the then Kano State Attorney-General entered a Nolle Prosequi, despite the glaring evidence against the Accused Persons in the case. In this Discourse, Lawyers examine the causes of mob justice in Nigeria, the unconstitutionality of adopting a State religion, and how to stop this barbaric practice. These are the submissions of Kunle Edun, SAN; Jonathan Gunu Taidi, SAN; Ayoade Oluwasanmi and Emmanuel Onwubiko      

Killing in the Name of Religion: Murder of Amanye by a Mob 

Kunle Edun, SAN

Introduction

Few days ago, it was reported that a young food vendor named Amanye was burnt to death by a mob in Niger State, on the allegation that she made a blasphemous comment against the Holy Prophet Muhammed. It was also reported that a witness at the scene stated that a man proposed to the young lady, and her response was considered blasphemous by some people in the area. Before, the security personnel or any form of help could arrive, she had already been set ablaze. Till this moment, no arrest has been made and considering how similar incidents were handled in the past by government, I doubt if any arrest will be made. 

In 2022, a young promising Nigerian student, Deborah Samuel was beaten and burnt alive in public in Sokoto State after being accused of blasphemous comments. Last year, a butcher, Usman Buda was stoned to death in a Northern State under the same circumstances. The recurring incidents of mobs taking people’s lives on allegations of making blasphemous comments against Islam and the Holy Prophet Muhammed, is now getting heightened and very concerning. The fact remains that, whenever incidents like this happen, the security agencies seem un-interested in arresting the culprits, and getting justice for the victims of such mob actions. It is therefore, no surprise that in the case of Deborah Samuel, one of the culprits was arrested and charged to court but, it was reported that the charge was later withdrawn and the accused person discharged.  Is this how we value life in Nigeria? 

A minor argument or disagreement, a refusal to accept a romantic proposal, envy and any other reason may lead to accusations of blasphemy and then instant mob action, which in most cases lead to taking of life, destruction of properties and a breakdown of law and order.  The cheapening of human lives in Nigeria, in the name of religion should be a matter of great concern to governments at all levels. Unfortunately, it does not seem so. The apparent nonchalantness or indifference of government whenever such mob actions occur, actual does more to fuel it, and guess what, the poor are usually the victims. 

Islam: A Religion of Peace

Islam is a religion of peace. It is a religion that stresses the importance of social justice, the pursuit of truth and protecting the vulnerable are core attributes of Islam. Islam strongly condemns hostility, but promotes peaceful co-existence and religious tolerance. There is nowhere in the Islamic religion where mob action is sanctioned, or anyone is authorised to carry out death sentence on a person alleged to have blasphemed. Islamic religion and tenets enjoin that whenever accusations are made, same must be properly investigated and go through a due process of law. No one is allowed to make himself the accuser, prosecutor, Judge and enforcer of the sentence. If this is allowed, it will be a clear invitation of chaos that will ultimately lead to a breakdown of law and order, and more death. 

In as much as no system or government or individual should encourage blasphemy of any religion, there are processes that must be followed whenever there are such infractions. It is only a duly constituted court or tribunal that can determine whether a blasphemous statement has been made. This is to prevent a situation where any person who bears grudges against an individual may resort to self-help by accusing a person of making a blasphemous statement, which may later turn out to be not true. In the case of Amanye, no one can actually say what she said that amounted to blasphemy. But, she is now dead, without being heard. 

Section39 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Government of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, guarantees all Nigerians the right to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas. In the case of DIN v African Newspapers of (Nig) Ltd (1990) LPELR-947(SC) (Pp. 25 paras. D) the Supreme Court of Nigeria re-echoed this fundamental right when it stated through Karibi-Whyte, JSC (of blessed memory) that 

“The right to comment freely on matters of public interest is one of the fundamental rights of free speech guaranteed to the individual in our Constitution. It is so dear to the Nigerian, and of vital importance and relevance to the rule of law which we so dearly treasure for our personal freedom. It is conceded that the right to discuss matters of public concern, does not confer liberty to make defamatory statements; however honestly made”.   Also see Aviomoh  COP & Anor (2014) LPELR-23039(CA) (Pp. 15-17 paras. F).

The killings of Amanye, Deborah Samuel, Usman and others by mobs was jungle justice, and this is unlawful. The duty of the Nigerian government, is to provide for the welfare and security of all Nigerians. Security agencies also have the constitutional duty, to ensure that the lives of all Nigerians are protected and safe from such hazards. They have all failed in this regard as it relates to the murder of Amanye, Deborah, Usman and other victims of religious mob attacks. No Country should allow that, Civil remedies under the law of defamation and libel are available for any aggrieved person to resort to, instead of resorting to jungle justice. This was the admonition of the Supreme Court in the case of Kaza v State (2008) LPELR-1683(SC) (Pp. 66 paras. E) coram Tobi, JSC (blessed memory) that “An accused person cannot, in principle, be convicted without being heard. And what is more, a hearing must be before a judicially recognised adjudicatory body; not a collective body of local persons out to do jungle justice; a kangaroo Court”.  

Stopping the Menace of Jungle Justice 

The menace of jungle justice and efforts to stop it, requires the sincere intervention of governments at all levels. The need for continuous aggressive enlightenment of the local populace not to take laws into their hands and to be tolerant of religious views, should be embarked on. Politicians should also stop playing politics with the lives of Nigerians. Every Nigerian life of all tribes, religions and creed matters. Government should not be selective in its application of the criminal laws, whenever there is an infraction. If the killing of Deborah Samuel had been followed up with the appropriate criminal actions meted to the culprits, probably Amanye, Usman and others would have still been alive. Citizens should be more concerned about the state of their welfare, and how their governments are managing their resources, instead of killing themselves for reasons bordering on religion. The rich in the North, West and East of Nigeria do not quarrel or fight over religious differences, and they still remain the best of friends and business partners. It is always the masses who have been subjugated to suffering, poverty and economic depression, that are always the ones quarrelling over religious differences. The weaponisation of the masses for nefarious purposes, should stop. 

I end this piece with the admonition of My Lord, Hon. Justice Adah, J.C.A in Fabiyi v State (2013) LPELR-21180(CA) (Pp. 48-49 paras. D) where he stated:

“In Nigeria, the maintenance of Law and Order is part of the statutory responsibilities of the Police. It is the civic duty of all the citizens to enhance the flourishing of Law and Order. This therefore, demands that no one takes law into his hands and engage in self help that could lead to a breach of law and order, such as will enthrone or justify jungle justice. The path of civility is the path that gives the citizen the leeway to take his complaints of any assault to his rights to the Police, whose duty it is to investigate such complaints diligently and be convinced that there is the need to move into action before they set out in furtherance of the complaint”.    

 To Amanye, Deborah, Usman and others, who are the unfortunate victims of jungle justice, may their blood help in bringing the much-needed unity and tolerance Nigeria needs. Rest in peace. 

Kunle Edun, SAN, Past National Publicity Secretary, NBA

Blasphemy-Labelled Mob Killings in Northern Nigeria

Jonathan Gunu Taidi, SAN 

Nigeria has experienced a recurring pattern of mob violence triggered by accusations of “blasphemy,” in Northern States, (notably Sokoto, Kano, Katsina) and most recently, a lynching in Niger State. These incidents are not isolated criminal acts: they operate at the intersection of weak rule-of-law, punitive local statutes, politicised religious enforcement and social-media amplification. 

The law-enforcement and prosecutorial response, has repeatedly failed to secure accountability: arrests are sometimes made, but prosecutions collapse (prosecutors are often “no-show”), or matters are discontinued via prosecutorial discretion (nolle prosequi), producing an appearance and often the reality of impunity. Amnesty International and HRW document systemic law-enforcement failures that embolden mobs. 

The legal architecture (State Sharia provisions and vague “insult to religion” offences), coupled with political incentives to placate conservative constituencies and weak institutional safeguards, create a perverse environment where vigilantism is tolerated and sometimes indirectly enabled. The ECOWAS Community Court has recently found aspects of Kano’s blasphemy law incompatible with regional human-rights obligations.

Overview of Recent Incidents

In Sokoto State on the 12th of May, 2022, a student, Deborah Samuel (Yakubu), was beaten, stoned and burned on campus after a WhatsApp remark was labelled blasphemous. Two suspects were arrested; prosecutions later faltered (charges of incitement/public disturbance; reported non-appearance of prosecution Lawyers were rampant). Rights groups criticised the failure to prosecute. Similarly in Sokoto, June 2023, Usman Buda, a market trader (butcher), was stoned to death in a marketplace after allegations of blasphemy, another episode that attracted international concern about the spread of mob justice.

Several incidences have occurred in other States. For instance, Kano State has seen several blasphemy-related prosecutions (e.g. Yahaya Sharif-Aminu sentenced by a Sharia court in 2020; later appeals and retrials). There are also documented cases where suspects in lynchings were arrested and later freed or acquitted, fuelling the perception of selective justice. As already noted, the ECOWAS court has found parts of the State’s blasphemy provisions incompatible with free-expression guarantees. 

The most recently reported of these incidents is the Katsina/Niger State scenario. A food-seller known as Ammaye/Amaye (reported as a Katsina resident) was lynched and set on fire in Mariga, Niger State after making allegedly blasphemous remarks; security was overwhelmed and Police say investigations/arrests are ongoing. This is the latest iteration in a pattern of similar killings. 

Root-Cause Analysis

1. Legal enabling environment legitimises “blasphemy” as a criminal category

Twelve Northern States operate Sharia courts and retain statutory provisions criminalising insults to religion and tagged as ‘’blasphemy’’ (some provisions prescribe harsh penalties). Worse, vague definitions (what counts as “insult”) create low evidentiary thresholds and politicise enforcement. The ECOWAS court explicitly criticised key Kano provisions, as incompatible with freedom-of-expression obligations. The law becomes a force-multiplier for extra-legal actors, who claim they are enforcing religious norms. Criminal law that singles out “insult to religion”, provides rhetorical cover for mobs and reduces the practical distance between accusation and violent sanction.

2. Operational failure of security and justice institutions → impunity loop

Amnesty International documents systematic failures: slow Police response, inability to protect victims (or overwhelmed units), inadequate investigation, and weak prosecutions (including non-appearance of prosecutors), all of which create an expectation that perpetrators will escape meaningful sanction. 

When arrests are made but prosecutions collapse (or the AG’s office discontinues actions), the deterrent effect evaporates and future mobs draw confidence from prior impunity.

3. Prosecutorial/political calculus (nolle prosequi and the appearance of intervention)

The Attorney-General’s constitutional power to institute or discontinue prosecutions (nolle prosequi), is broad and un-reviewable in many practical respects; this is intended for legitimate State reasons (insufficient evidence, public interest). But, its opaque exercise can be weaponised politically, or used to avoid confronting powerful or large constituencies. Legal scholarship warns that, arbitrary use of “nolle prosequi’’ undermines public confidence. Even where courts and Police do their nominal jobs, a late-stage discontinuation can functionally free suspects and signal State tolerance.

4. Quasi-State religious enforcers and community actors

Institutional actors (e.g., State Hisbah/“religious police”, local vigilante elements, influential clerics), often operate in the same ecosystem as formal authorities. They can escalate accusations into mass action, or act as gatekeepers; their ambiguous statutory footing complicates accountability. Cases show Hisbah involvement in arrests and public pressure on Police. 

Parallel enforcement structures blur responsibility, and can accelerate and legitimise the transition from accusation to extrajudicial punishment.

5. Social drivers (Information dynamics, demography and political signalling)

Viral videos and mobile messaging radicalise rapid response; unemployed/underemployed youths are often the executing foot soldiers; politicians sometimes avoid strong condemnation, for fear of losing votes or provoking clerical backlash. Analysts point to a broader social-political economy where religious identity is political capital.

Rapid social amplification and low social cost, often leads to more frequent and more violent vigilantism.

The “Complicity” Question (Direct vs Structural Complicity)

This is usefully framed as (A) commission, (B) omission, and (C) structural enabling.

Commission (direct State collusion): Fewer well-documented instances of active State agents ordering murders; more commonly, non-State actors carry out killings. Direct orders from State leadership, are not the dominant pattern in public reporting. (No credible open-source evidence that Governors or Federal Ministers formally direct lynchings.)

Omission (failure to act/deliberate inaction): Strongly backed by evidence. Patterns include delayed/weak Police response during attacks, failure to secure suspects, prosecutors failing to appear, and prosecutions discontinued or weakened. Amnesty and HRW highlight these omissions and link them to impunity. The appearance of State non-action often looks like complicity to victims and communities.

Structural enabling (legal and institutional architecture): The clearest, most pervasive form of complicity. When State laws criminalise “insult to religion” ambiguously, and State-recognised religious institutions (like some Hisbah Boards) operate with thin oversight, the State creates an environment where mobs can rationalise violence as enforcement of normative order. The ECOWAS judgement is a juridical recognition, that some State laws are incompatible with human-rights commitments. 

In practice, the States implicated show systemic omission and structural enabling, rather than (predominantly) explicit instruction to kill. But, omission and enablement have functionally the same result, which is widespread, low-risk mob violence and inadequate accountability.

Effects: Measured and Normative

Rule-of-law erosion: Victims do not receive protection; perpetrators enjoy de-facto impunity. 

Human-rights impact: Targeted minorities (religious/ethnic) bear disproportionate costs; chilling effect on freedom of expression and conscience. 

Communal polarisation and cycles of reprisal: Attacks spark counter-violence, property destruction, and deepen mistrust.

International legal and reputational consequences: Regional courts and rights bodies have ruled against draconian blasphemy provisions; continued impunity invites diplomatic pressure and potential sanctions. 

Practical, Accountable and Workable Remedies

Law and Policy

Immediate legislative reform: Repeal or narrowly re-draft State blasphemy provisions to meet international standards (per ECOWAS judgement) by removing capital or vague penalties; codify higher evidentiary thresholds for any offence touching religion. 

Regulate prosecutorial discontinuation: Require the Attorney-General’s office to publish reasoned decisions, when entering nolle prosequi in high-profile or mass-violence cases, and to refer matters for independent review where dismissal appears arbitrary (Statutory/regulatory transparency mitigates abuse).

Justice and Security Operations 

Rapid-response protocols for accusation spikes: Dedicate trained rapid-deployment teams (Police and community liaisons) for market/campus flashpoints; standard operating procedures for holding suspects safely. 

Professionalise evidence/prosecution chains: Digital forensics for video evidence; witness protection and fast-track prosecution units for mob killings; ensure prosecution counsel are resourced and present.

Institutional accountability

Independent prosecutorial oversight: Strengthen an independent DPP or internal oversight, to audit AG decisions in systemic mob cases (not to remove constitutional AG power, but to create checks on opaque exercise). 

Oversight of religious enforcement actors: Clarify the statutory limits of Hisbah and similar bodies; require registration, code of conduct, and accountability channels (disciplinary tribunals; parliamentary review).

Social Measures

Clerical & community engagement: Fund interfaith rapid-response peace committees and train Imams/Priests to publicly denounce extrajudicial violence; tie clerical incentives (e.g. community grants) to public-order commitments.

Counter-misinformation campaign: Platform takedowns, verified rapid-response rebuttals, and local media literacy to blunt viral accusation dynamics.

Civil Society and International

Legal aid for victims’ families: Provide pro bono prosecution support; civil suits where criminal justice fails.

Use of regional mechanisms: Pursue/remind States of ECOWAS obligations, and use the Court’s rulings as leverage for domestic reform.

Conclusion

The pattern, where mob killing is frequently disguised as punishing “blasphemy”, is predictable and preventable; vague laws, political caution and shaky policing engenders recurring mob murder. The practical fix requires coordinated legal reform (which includes the removal or clarification of blasphemy offences); operational upgrades (Police/prosecution capacity and transparency on nolle); and social interventions (engagement with religious leadership an rapid counter-misinformation). 

Without systemic change, each new lynching reinforces the impunity equilibrium and risks cascading communal violence.

Jonathan Gunu Taidi, SAN, former General Secretary, NBA

Blasphemy, Human Nature and a Lack of Justice

Ayoade Oluwasanmi 

Background 

According to news reports, on Saturday the 30th of August, 2025, a food vendor by the name of Amaye was burnt by a mob in Kasuwan-Garba area of Niger State. Her offence? She was allegedly attacked and killed for the offence of blaspheming the Prophet Muhammed. 

However, according to a BBC News report on the incident, eyewitnesses claim she was attacked for another reason altogether. According to the news report, eyewitnesses told local media that a man proposed to her. Her response to the marriage proposal, was allegedly considered blasphemous by those who heard it. She was lynched and burnt to death, before the Police could rescue her. According to the Police, they are conducting their investigations, and the perpetrators of the heinous crime will be brought to book and prosecuted. I personally won’t hold my breath at the possibility of the perpetrators being arrested, let alone prosecuted. 

Similar Incidents

According to an online BBC News report of the incident, there have been several incidents of this nature, where people have been accused of blasphemy leading to a mob attack and their eventual death at the hands of the mob. 

We all remember the story of the late Deborah Samuel who was accused of uttering blasphemous statements in 2022, and was attacked and killed by a mob in Sokoto. Then last year, a butcher by the name of Usman Bodo was killed also in Sokoto, using the excuse of him having made blasphemous statements. A quick Google search will reveal other instances. In 2016, a Christian teacher was murdered by a religious mob in Bauchi State, for confiscating a Quran. The incident resulted in the deaths of over 20 Christians, and the burning of churches. In 2007 in Kano State, nine Christians were attacked and killed and churches and homes were burnt, after some children allegedly drew a picture of Prophet Muhammed. In 2012, a riot occurred in Bichi, Kano State due to allegations of blasphemous statements made against certain individuals. All these mob attacks for alleged blasphemy have occurred, since some Northern States introduced Shari’ah Law after the return to democratic rule. 

Philosophy

Thomas Hobbes was a 17th century English philosopher, who was one of the proponents of the social contract theory of government. According to him, individuals give up some of their God-given rights and freedoms to a sovereign in exchange for order and security, because life in its natural state would otherwise be poor, nasty, brutish and short. 

John Locke, another English philosopher born in the 17th century and another proponent of the social contract theory posited that the social contract is the agreement people have to form a government in order to protect their rights to life, liberty and freedom which are inherent in every person and not given by government. He also believed that people gave up some of those rights and in return, they could expect protection. He however, believed that the people had a right to overthrow tyrannical governments. Therefore, both men believed that the people gave us some rights to a government in return for security, peace and order. 

All over the world, there is a crisis of confidence in institutions such as marriage, religion and government. People have different reasons as to why this is. While I do not intend to go into a dissertation on the reasons for this, one common thread runs through them all. While we believe that these institutions were given to us by God, they are all run, controlled and administered by human beings. While these institutions were given to us for the regulation of life and society and to ensure our happiness, human beings by their actions have somehow managed to ruin things. This has in turn, broken people’s faith in these institutions. The desire for money, sex, control and power by those entrusted with the leadership of these institutions has resulted in people turning their backs on these institutions, and doing as they please to the detriment of society at large. While the lack of faith in these institutions could be attributed to factors unique to each institution, the two common factors that lead to the erosion of trust in all of them is a lack of transparency on the part of the leaders, and a failure by these leaders to hold themselves and others accountable. 

Government: Corruption and Lack of Accountability 

Most Nigerians believe those in government are corrupt, and appropriate government funds to themselves. A lot of Nigerians know people who went into government as normal, ordinary, everyday people who at times struggled to pay their house rent or children’s school fees. Then these same people left government afterwards, as multimillionaires or even billionaires. We have all seen or heard the stories about the trials of former Governors, accountant generals and other high profile government officials by the EFCC, ICPC and other agencies and bodies. There are hardly any that have either been punished or punished sufficiently in people’s eyes, for the act of being corrupt while in office. Therefore, there is the sense that there is a lack of justice, and that people are not being held accountable. There is also a lack of transparency on the part of government, as to why people are not been held accountable. 

Where those who are considered as elites are not being held accountable on whatever issue, it creates a sense of resentment on the part of the rest of the populace. What follows thereafter, when people feel there is no justice in the land, is that people do not trust governmental institutions and they take the law into their own hands and mete punishment, not on those government officials, but on their fellow citizens who are not part of the elites, for any perceived offence. Their wrongdoing in this instance, then gives the government the opportunity to mete out punishment to those who have used government’s failure to hold people accountable as an excuse to carry out crimes. Most times, government fails at this too. Why? 

The aim of government, is implementing policies that will benefit the greatest number of people. However, because government is made up of people, a lot of times, those in power are moved by other considerations other than the good of the people. For instance, most times they are moved by self-interest. Those in government want to perpetuate themselves in power and win elections by any means necessary, so they can continue to have access to the people’s commonwealth while in power and hold on to their elite, untouchable status when they leave government. One of the ways they do this, is by seeking to use any means to control the people. They exert control by using the media, religious, tribal or thought leaders or what other instruments make themselves available for use. When one lives in a dysfunctional society that is highly illiterate like Nigeria, at times, unfortunately, these leaders are those people look to for guidance as to what is right or wrong, instead of the laws or government. Therefore, because these leaders are in cahoots with the government with the aim of controlling the people for their own reasons, at times, these leaders excuse wrongdoing by the people, because they know a large swathe of the population are in support of the wrong act done. They do not want to lose their control over the people, so they refuse to condemn the wrong actions of the people and look for reasons to justify them. In turn, they put pressure on those in government to not hold anyone accountable as this would erode their popularity and standing with the people who are sadly in support of the wrong act. Therefore, because government feels beholden to these leaders as the ones who help to keep them in power, offenders are allowed to go scot-free. Hence, sadly the cycle continues. 

A country where there is no accountability or transparency in governance, especially in the justice system, will always be susceptible to mob action, and leads to the unravelling of the social contract. According to the online BBC News article, the Supreme Court has previously said that cases of blasphemy must be proven in court. True justice is said to be built on two pillars. The two pillars are encapsulated in two Latin maxims. The first is, Nemo judex in causa sua which translated means “You cannot be a judge in your own case”. The other Latin maxim is, Audi alterem partem which means “You must hear both sides”. Mob action totally negates these two principles of justice. Hence, mob action is not justice. Again, there must be justice for the accused and justice for the accuser, for there to be true justice. Government needs to uphold its part of the social contract, and protect people’s lives, liberty and property. 

Conclusion 

Mob action, does not bring justice. It only makes the accuser feel good, that he or she has taken the law into their own hands. This is not how a just society is built. No society can thrive, in this way. What it does, is that it creates a perception that some people are above the law and can get away with anything, and causes others to live in fear of being at the end of a mob action. It also only encourages the vicious cycle to continue, as some will believe that is the only way to get justice. Neither the government nor the people, should support or encourage this. 

Nigerians need to raise their voices and demand for transparency and accountability from the government, regardless of whoever is affected. Also, come election time, Nigerians also need to elect people with good values, especially those with a track record of integrity and a vision for the good of the people, into positions of authority in government, or the vicious cycle will continue or probably get worse. 

Ayoade Oluwasanmi, Partner, Gbenga Biobaku & Co., Author of Lost, But Found; Let Me Love You and The African Prince (How to Get Power, Hold on to It, and (Mis-) Use It in Africa), a Satire about governance in Africa 

Rise of Blaphemy Killings in Nigeria

Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko 

There is no gainsaying the existential fact that Nigeria, a Country which in Section 10 of her Constitution or the Grundnorm is identified as a secular State, by virtue of the clear prohibition of the recognition of any religion as a State religion, is however, bedevilled and confronted by the hydra-headed monster of the confusion between the strict application of the laws of the country, and the contradiction of the State officials paying Supreme loyalty to their religious sentiments.  

 This scenario of clearly seeing government officials preferring to adore their religious sensibilities, rather than give their absolute loyalty to the nation’s Constitution and the extant laws, is demonstrated in the lackadaisical attitudes of heads of security agencies that allow for religious fanatics to always have their way in enforcing their brute force, and the primitive dastardly act of mob killings of citizens whom they arbitrarily perceived to have committed blasphemy particularly against the religion of Islam. 

And, because these cases of blasphemy killings have remained unresolved by the law enforcement agencies and the justice sector in Nigeria, due to inherent compromises on the altar of religious sentiments and loyalty to individual religious ideologies as against compliance to the rule of law, Nigerians of different religious affinity are free everywhere but in reality are in chains. Life in some parts of Nigeria, most especially in Northern Nigeria, has become short, brutish, uninteresting, and intolerably harsh, because the mobs who see themselves as the defenders of their religion, have been let loose to do according to their whims and caprices. 

 Blasphemy related killings in Nigeria have therefore, constituted a serious epidemic that must be treated to a satisfactory and legitimate conclusion, and the way to do that is to adhere strictly to the due process of the law and follow the rule of law, not the rule of the disorderly religious mobs. 

Distressing Acceleration in Mob Justice 

As aforementioned, it is historically correct to state that, in the last decade—and with distressing acceleration in the past few years—Nigeria has been scorched by a pattern of mob violence sparked by allegations of “blasphemy.” The script is numbingly familiar: an accusation (often contested, often trivial, frequently sparked by ordinary disputes) spreads in minutes; a crowd gathers; stones, sticks, and petrol appear; and a human being is extinguished in a frenzy of presumed piety. Police too often arrive late, or are overwhelmed; arrests, if any, wither into silence; and the cycle begins again. This is not merely a public-order problem. It is a direct assault on the Nigerian Constitution, on our courts, on our plural democratic identity, and on God’s gift of life itself.

Think of the names that have become shorthand, for this national shame. In Sokoto, on 12 May, 2022, college student Deborah Samuel was lynched and burned, after classmates accused her of “blasphemy” in a WhatsApp group. The murder shocked the world; yet, the justice that followed was halting and painfully incomplete. Rights monitors and analysts cautioned that impunity would encourage repetition—and they were right.

A year later, on 25 June, 2023, a Sokoto butcher, Usman Buda, was stoned to death in a bustling market after an argument spiralled into a blasphemy allegation. He died in daylight, in public, among fellow traders; rights groups documented how weak deterrence feeds the boldness of mobs. This was not an attack on a religious minority—Buda himself was Muslim—underscoring that blasphemy mobs are not “defence of the faith”, but naked lawlessness.

In Kano, the tragedy bears a particularly bitter legal aftertaste. On 2 June, 2016, Mrs Bridget Agbahime, a Christian trader, was killed in Kofar Wambai market after a quarrel that accusers reframed as “blasphemy.” The suspects were arrested and arraigned. Then, in a move that still stings the conscience, the Kano State Attorney-General entered a nolle prosequi—a formal notice of discontinuance—freeing the accused. Outrage rang across Nigeria, because the message to would-be lynch mobs was unmistakable: even when Police do their job, politics may erase accountability.

Katsina has its own scars. In July 2023, national and international media again reported a blasphemy-linked mob killing, feeding a grim ledger of similar incidents across the Northwest and North-East. The picture is tragically consistent: rumours in a market; a shout of “blasphemy!”; then, instead of the rule of law, the rule of the loudest and most violent.

And, most recently, Niger State: in August 2024, a mob in the Suleja area beat a man to death after an allegation of blasphemy. The Niger incident is crucial for what it reveals about proximity: this was at the nation’s capital’s doorstep. If lynch mobs can snuff out life within commuting distance of Abuja, then no one should pretend this is a “far-away” problem. Reports detailed how quickly the crowd formed, how Police failed to deter the violence, and how the language of religious outrage became a license for murder.

The Constitution, Laws and International Charters 

To be clear: no Nigerian law permits a crowd to try, convict, and kill. In the North, the Penal Code (Northern States) Federal Provisions Act defines culpable homicide and punishes intentional killing with death; any member of a lynch mob who participates in killing is, in law, a murderer, not a “defender of the faith.” Section 221 is unambiguous: culpable homicide is punishable with death. The idea that religious feeling can mitigate an unlawful killing, is a fiction our courts do not recognise.

 Nor can “blasphemy” be invoked as an all-purpose gag on life and liberty. Nigeria is a constitutional democracy, and our 1999 Constitution (as amended) enshrines the fundamental rights that mob justice destroys: Section 33 protects the right to life; Section 34 prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment; Section 36 guarantees fair hearing; Section 38 secures freedom of thought, conscience and religion; and Section 39 secures freedom of expression. These clauses are not decorative. They are binding commands to Government—and by extension, to every agent of the State—to protect, not to shrink from, those under threat. When Police allow a crowd to snatch suspects from their custody—as in the Bauchi case of Talle Mai Ruwa, dragged out of a Police outpost in 2021 and burned to death—State failure is not incidental; it is causal.

 International law points the same way. Nigeria is party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In General Comment No. 34, the UN Human Rights Committee states plainly that prohibitions on displays of lack of respect for a religion, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the narrow case of incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence under Article 20(2). Put differently: the ICCPR protects people, not ideas; it protects believers, not beliefs, from violence and persecution. Using “blasphemy” as a catch-all to punish mere dissent, flips human-rights logic on its head.

Critically, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights—which Nigeria domesticated as Cap A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004—is part of our municipal law. In Abacha v Fawehinmi (2000), the Supreme Court affirmed that the domesticated Charter has real force in our courts. The Charter reinforces rights to life, dignity, fair trial, conscience, and expression. Mob killings annihilate each of these.

 Recent jurisprudence has also moved decisively against “blasphemy” provisions that criminalise expression. On June 21, 2025, the ECOWAS Court of Justice held that Kano State’s Sharia Penal Code provisions criminalising blasphemy violate the African Charter and ICCPR, ordering their repeal and finding that blasphemy is not a permissible restriction on freedom of expression. That landmark judgement does two things: it underscores that international and regional human-rights standards are not abstract; and it deprives political leaders of the excuse that “our local law” compels the punishment of speech. It doesn’t—and cannot—when higher binding norms say otherwise.

So, what is driving these illegal killings? The causes are layered:

First, impunity. When the Kano Attorney-General entered nolle prosequi in the Agbahime case, a public lesson was taught—that even in high-profile murders, political discretion can erase prosecutions. The Attorney-General’s powers under Sections 174 and 211 of the Constitution to institute, take over, or discontinue criminal proceedings (the last, by entering nolle prosequi) are real; the Supreme Court in State v Ilori (1983) recognised their breadth. But, they are not a license to undermine justice. The Constitution itself makes clear that those powers must be exercised in the public interest, in the interests of justice, and to prevent abuse of legal process. Where nolle is used to free accused murderers without persuasive public reasons, it erodes deterrence and signals to mobs that the State’s zeal to protect life is negotiable.

Second, weaponised rumour and failure of first responders. Many of these killings erupt from arguments over money, trade, or personal slights that suddenly acquire a religious gloss. In several cases, victims were in Police custody and still “rescued” by mobs—an unforgivable lapse that transforms Police stations into waypoints on a march to murder. The Bauchi case of Talle Mai Ruwa is a textbook example.

Third, a misreading of faith that confuses vengeance with reverence. The Qur’an and the Bible are both replete with injunctions to justice, patience, and the sanctity of life; yet, time and again, “defenders of the faith” torch a body and broadcast the spectacle. That is not religion; it is idolatry of rage.

 Fourth, legal ambiguity exploited by extremists. Some Northern State codes still maintain “blasphemy-like” offences, and while ECOWAS has now condemned such provisions, local officials sometimes invoke them to placate crowds. The result is perverse: the more government signals that “blasphemy” is a crime, the more crowds feel empowered to execute it themselves, pre-empting any trial.

Fifth, political cowardice. Elected leaders sometimes issue sterile condemnations, then retreat, calculating that firm prosecutions will cost votes. But, it is not “leadership” to hide behind crowds. It is abdication.

 To those who say, “But you cannot deny that insulting a Prophet or trampling on a faith wounds public peace”, the answer is that our law already addresses incitement to violence and disorder without criminalising dissent or authorising murder. The question is not whether we value religious harmony—we do. The question is whether we will defend harmony, by law or by lynch mob.

The path out is legal, institutional, and moral

One: Make accountability visible and inevitable. Every blasphemy-linked lynching must be investigated as murder under the Penal Code; accomplices, abettors, and funders must be charged. Prosecutors should start from culpable homicide punishable with death, and proceed without fear or favour. Where Police failed to protect detainees, internal disciplinary processes should be swift and public. Naming and shaming is not enough; convictions must follow.

Two: Draw a bright line around nolle prosequi. The Attorney-General’s discretion exists to vindicate the public interest, not to compromise it. State v Ilori affirms the breadth of the power—but, its rationale is justice, not convenience. Where there is credible evidence of homicide by a mob, discontinuance should be exceptional. Attorneys-General who enter nolle in such cases should issue reasoned, public statements rooted in the constitutional criteria; without transparency, the power corrodes the rule of law. Legal scholarship across Nigeria has urged reform—guidelines, legislative oversight hearings, and a culture of judicial review when nolle appears to be deployed in bad faith.

Three: Repeal and replace “blasphemy” offences. The ECOWAS Court ruling against Kano’s blasphemy provisions is a watershed; States should comply, revising their laws to target true incitement (as defined by international standards) rather than protecting ideas from criticism. The UN’s General Comment 34 should be domesticated in training for Magistrates, Prosecutors, and Police.

 Four: Harden the front line—Police stations and patrols. No mob should again pry open a station door to “retrieve” a suspect. Commands must adopt crowd-control protocols tailored to blasphemy flashpoints: rapid reinforcement, secure transfer of detainees, and evidence-preserving video. Where Police lack manpower, Governors owe them the resources—and the political backing—to prevent “rescue” lynchings. The Bauchi debacle should never repeat.

 Five: Civic and religious leadership, must preach law. Sermons and civic education, need not become culture-wars. They should stress what every honest Imam and Pastor already knows: anger is not a defence to murder; faith does not fear debate; and Nigeria’s Constitution binds us all, Muslim and Christian, believer and sceptic. When a rumour of “blasphemy” erupts, true leaders calm crowds and steer them toward the courts, not the petrol can.

Six: Support victims’ families and protect witnesses. Mobs do not merely kill; they intimidate anyone who might identify them. Confidential hotlines, relocation options, and witness-protection funds are essential, if prosecutors are to prove cases beyond reasonable doubt.

 There is a deeper argument here about the kind of country we are struggling to become. Section 10 of the Constitution prohibits the adoption of a State religion. But, that is not a sterile secularism. It is a recognition that the public space belongs to all, and that the State may not pick a faith—or an interpretation within a faith—and elevate it above the rights of citizens. When a mob claims to enforce doctrine by fire, it is, in effect, attempting to supplant the State and its courts. Tolerating that is not “respect” for religion; it is a capitulation to theocracy by street decree.

 Some will object that the Sharif-Aminu case (the 2020 Kano musician sentenced to death by a Sharia court for a song) shows that “blasphemy” has legal pedigree. It does not—not anymore. That sentence was later set aside and retrial ordered on procedural grounds, and the ECOWAS Court has since declared such blasphemy offences incompatible with Nigeria’s binding human-rights commitments. The lesson is not that we cannot regulate speech; it is that we must regulate it within constitutional and international limits—penalising only the narrow category of incitement to violence or discrimination, not mere offence to religious feelings.

 If the jurisprudence still feels abstract, return to the grim concreteness of Niger, Kano, Sokoto, Katsina, and Bauchi. In Bauchi, the mob dragged Talle Mai Ruwa from a Police station, pooled money to buy petrol, and burned him while chanting. In Sokoto, Usman Buda was killed amid traders and stalls—no judge, no jury. In Kano, Bridget Agbahime was slain, and her alleged killers walked when nolle prosequi was entered. In Niger, a man was beaten to death within reach of the Federal capital. These are not isolated meteor strikes; they are connected failures—of policing, prosecution, politics, and public ethic.

 There is also a cautionary comparative lesson. Scholars and rights bodies show that blasphemy laws are counter-productive; they attract false accusations to settle scores, embolden violent actors, and chill legitimate debate. The UN’s General Comment 34 captured this hard-won insight after decades of global experience: you do not secure public order by criminalising disrespect for ideas; you secure it by protecting people from violence and only sanctioning speech that truly incites harm. Nigeria’s multi-religious reality demands nothing less.

Finally, a word about courage. Politicians often say, “We condemn the killing”, and then, when the cameras are off, ask security chiefs to “avoid escalation”. That is the opposite of leadership. Leadership is escalation in defence of the Constitution: detain the ringleaders, charge them properly, resist pressure to abandon the case, and argue it to conviction. Leadership is telling every community that, if a rumour of blasphemy arises, the only lawful destination is a courtroom—and that any attempt to deliver “instant justice” will be treated, instantly, as murder.

 We are not helpless. Our Constitution, our Penal Code, our courts, our regional obligations, and our moral tradition all point in the same direction: protect life, punish murder, and preserve a civic space where we can disagree, even deeply, without lighting a match. The choice is not between reverence and rights; it is between law and lawlessness. Every time a crowd kills in the name of God, it insults God and mutilates the Republic. Every time the State blinks, it invites the next atrocity.

On behalf of citizens of conscience—and in fidelity to the oath sworn by those who govern—I call for immediate, visible steps:

Announce and publish charging decisions in all pending blasphemy-linked killings within 30 days, with timelines for trial.

Issue binding prosecutorial guidelines that limit nolle prosequi to transparent, exceptional circumstances in homicide cases; where nolle is entered, publish the reasons.

Table State-level Bills to repeal “blasphemy” offences and replace them with narrow, ICCPR-compliant incitement provisions.

Equip and audit Police commands in known flashpoints, with specific metrics: response times, station hardening, and anti-mob drills.

Fund witness protection and victim support, in lynching cases; without witnesses, no law can stand.

Do these things, and we begin to break the cycle. Fail again, and the next name—another Deborah, another Bridget, another Usman, another anonymous trader on a hot afternoon—will be added to a roll of the dead that indicts us all.

Nigeria is better than a crowd with stones. Our law already says so. It is time our leaders, and all of us, did too.

Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko, Founder, Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA);  former National Commissioner, National Human Rights Commission, Nigeria 

The post Blasphemy Killings: One too Many appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.

​